Toyota tries to make the case for SUVs
Over on the Open Road Blog, Toyota has a post about making the case for SUVs that was prompted by an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer. They pretty much echo what has been said here before, mostly in the context of discussing hybrid SUVs like the Tahoe and Durango. Their are indeed some legitimate reasons for having an SUV. If you have a large family or regularly carry more than three passengers, a larger vehicle certainly makes some sense. It also makes sense if you regularly have to tow a heavy trailer or you live in a very rural area where roads may not get promptly cleared in the winter.
The problem that Toyota, Chrysler, GM, et al have discovered over the past year as gas prices spiked and then the economy collapsed is that people are taking a much harder look at what they actually need. While there are a number of drivers who fit the aforementioned categories, most SUV buyers in recent years did not. Those people have increasingly decided that they don't need the size, weight and energy consumption of a big SUV. For those people a car, minivan or smaller crossover makes a lot more sense, practically and economically.
Finally if you do have an older SUV that occasionally gets used for its intended purpose, you may not want to get rid of it, especially if its paid for. As I advised a co-worker with an older Suburban, just leave it in the driveway, and use it when you need it. The market is so flooded it's not worth trying to sell. Just buy a decent used car to drive to work and shopping.
[Source: Toyota]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
MemphisNET 9:05AM (1/02/2009)
Not quite the same thing, but that's why I hang on to my Magnum R/T. It drives like a car, hauls like a truck, its only 3 years old but thus far it's been very reliable if only a pig on gas (in the city, hwy has still been 37mpg imp.) and can take the family on trips. Gas has been ''cheap'' but I still use the sedan for my every day driving and going to work.
Some people actually need these vehicles. But I still shake my head and wonder 'why' when I see these guys in downtown Toronto in their H2's, Suburban's, Excursions and Armada's with only a single person in the vehicle. And I see these same guys every single day on my way to work.
Reply
Carney 9:08AM (1/02/2009)
For $100 per car, Toyota or any other automaker could reassure consumers anxious about another gas price spike (which BTW is coming since OPEC has radically slashed production) by adding the ability to burn not just gasoline only but also cheaper ethanol and especially much cheaper methanol fuel.
Methanol can be made from any biomass without exception, including sewage, trash, crop residues, weed plants (such as those which clog waterways and must be expensively removed), etc., or from abundant supplies of natural gas and coal. This wide variety of sources makes it impossible for anyone to "corner" the market and jack up the price by deliberately restricting production, OPEC style. As long as they can run on fuel that is not only low now, but which has a stable price that people can rely on indefinitely into the future, big fuel guzzlers that people actually want will sell again.
Reply
Laurens van Rooijen 10:17AM (1/02/2009)
After years of following a philosophy of "bigger is better" in terms of car building, the tide is turning - at last. Sadly for the American car builders, the did not hear the change coming, as they were merely whistling their tune while building inefficient, out-dated and spring-leaf-sprung cars that were being sold for exaggerated prices.
While a small minority of SUV owners actually do need such a car, most of them definitely don't - and now that fuel costs are rising and budgets are getting scarce and being recalculated, they get rid of their thirsty dinosaurs.
As an avid cyclist (I own four expensive bicycles but no car) I can't help to warm-heartedly applaud this trend: With their sheer size, SUVs leave little room for other road users, and their mass is a clear danger to all others in cases of accidents. Additionally, at least in Europe this type of car is most popular with extremely insecure or extremely reckless drivers. So yes, every SUV less on the street is a good thing. Some young ecologists even want to ban SUVs in Switzerland (where I live), whereas I rather opt to push them out of the market by means of higher taxes aimed at energy-inefficient cars.
Detroit dug its own grave by ignoring all trends. The workers do not deserve the crisis at hand now, the management surely does. But we all know who's gonna suffer most, do we?
Reply
RSR 11:03AM (1/02/2009)
"inefficient, out-dated and spring-leaf-sprung cars" - first, leaf springs have advantages for trucks. Before singling out American trucks for inefficiency, go to fueleconomy.gov and compare to non-Detroit vehicles. You will find that European automakers build most inefficient SUVs in the world (BMW, Audi, Mercedes, Porsche, and VW).
In terms of taking space on the road, consider that some Mercedes and BMW passenger vehicles actually take up more space than smaller SUVs. Actually, they consume even more gas than smaller SUVs.
"Detroit dug its own grave by ignoring all trends." - except that "all trend" was actually building SUVs. American, Japanese, and German Big3s have been relentlessly marketing SUVs. Even Porsche has. So why pick on Detroit?
Let me clarify that I am not defending SUVs. I have never owned one and not planning to since I prefer better vehicle dynamics. But I only see your argument is based on anti-Detroit sentiment, and then trying to make up reasons to attack it, just as many others are doing nowadays. But facts do not support it.
Laurens van Rooijen 11:18AM (1/02/2009)
@ RSR
Sorry if you feel my criticism is targetting at Detroit only. Of course the SUV-frenzy lured other manufacturers into the same problems - and of course it is well deserved there as well. I even consider BMW's X6 as the most stupid kind of car ever to go into production, closely followed by Audi's Q7.
But some of the European and Asian car manufacturers (mostly the French and the Japanese) did not follow that strict philosophy of "bigger is better". And yes, they do get rewarded for that now, as their sales do not drop as drastically.
The funny thing is that at the end of January 2008 I wrote a little essay on the Detroit Motor Show and the obvious unwillingness of car manufacturers to see the tide turning on my blog (http://mudstud-speaklouder.blogspot.com), calling FORD's new F150 pick-up "possibly the last dinosaur of its breed". So after all that has been happening in recent weeks, I do feel as if reality has come pretty close to my analysis of the short-comings of especially the American car builders - which is the reason why I singled them out. If Porsche, Audi and Mercedes are having a hard time as well, than that is well deserved, for they have been neglecting the very same trends that Detroit did not want to know about.
My favourite car might well be the Nissan Cubic, as it defies all attempts at being cool and goes for pure functionality instead. Lots of space within a small car that does not come with a thirsty big block engine: Now that sounds reasonable to me...
RSR 12:08PM (1/02/2009)
I agree that the "bigger is better" philosophy is critically flawed for long term. And I agree with many of your points in the reply. French did stay with smaller cars, as you pointed out, but I think not all Asian automakers did; if you study the trend of conservative Toyota and Honda product lines, their vehicles have been growing in size for every new models. Honda's Civic is now bigger than the old Accord, and Accord is now under full size sedan category (without sunroof option - extra space puts it in the category). (By the way, I am talking about NAFTA models, since Europe gets Acura TSX as its Accord.) And Toyota has so many truck/SUV models now that they're struggling there as well.
I definitely agree that X6 is a strange concept. ; )
Nissan Cube is functional, but its unaerodynamic shape probably hurts highway speed fuel economy, although in Japan that doesn't matter so much. My personal pick would be more streamlined hatchback or wagon (I owned two such vehicles).
Laurens van Rooijen 12:22PM (1/02/2009)
@ RSR
You bring up an excellent point stating that one and the same model of a manufacturer has been growing over the years, both in proportions and weight.
Another excellent example for this is Volkswagen:
The first generation of the Golf was a minimalistic 750kg-ish car. Nowadays, a Golf has twice the weight, is stuffed with electronics and it has grown to a full family car. If you want the same small and lightweight car as the original Golf used to be, it is not sufficient to look for the next smaller car of VW, as the Polo has become larger than the original Golf by now. But hey, that's why they came up with things like the Lupo and the Fox, right?
It will be very interesting to see how the media fit into their role of educating the customers - away from the bigger is better, nought-to-sixty in five seconds gibberish and more open to an efficiency-driven thinking that goes for an as small car as possible to serve the duties. In Japan, it's the scarcity of parking space that helped to promote this kind of thinking. If you cannot get people to change from cars to bicycles, than get them to change to smaller cars at least, might well be my motto.
Tony Belding 7:44PM (1/04/2009)
My suspicion is that the people who really need a SUV is smaller than the number of used ones flooding the market, and it may continue to be so for several years. The outlook for manufacturing and selling new SUVs at this point is not that great.
Reply
tark 1:50AM (1/05/2009)
I believe the point most commentators are missing is the foolishness of trying to make one car do all things. I have always said that compromise vehicles are just that.for me three cars accumulated over 20 years. 1 1949 Willys jeepster tricked for offroad with v8 totally impractical for dates or twisty canyons for that 2- 1969 Porsche 911s 2200 lbs of fun totally impractical for work for 3- 1997 Chevy Astro great for keeping parts and tools locked and towing other cars.
These are my choices, not for everyone. There is NO vehicle that can do all specialties. I will keep all three and maybe add a hypermiler nissan cube type next.
Reply